Minor aside: I recently debated this issue a few weeks ago in front of 1,700 high school students in Illinois. One of the phrases that bother me the most in this debate is referring to people as ex-felons once they are released from prison. The problem is that once a felon, you are always a felon unless your record is expunged.

3 Comments:

Anonymous said...

The downside is that many (most?) felonies are non-violent. Do we really want the state to decide who can and who can't certify their power?

Twisting the argument from voting to the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment was clearly written as a check against state power. If the state can define who can and who can't possess a gun then it loses all meaning.

I can easily accept that all felonies are not the same. If those who want felons to vote want to make that argument, they should not want to restore the voting rights for all felons. Many felonies are indeed nonviolent. Fine say that these penalties apply to only violent felons, but liberals will not accept that limit. Why?

There are so many collateral penalties that one faces from conviction, even for misdemeanors, and yet liberals are only arguing that voting rights should be restored. Why not the ability to get certain types of jobs? Why not the ability to defend yourself? Most of these convicted felons are poor and will live in high crime areas, but we will not allow them to defend themselves. My guess is that most felons are probably more concerned with their ability to work or defend themselves than with the ability to vote, but the only concern that liberals have is for their votes.

If there are good reasons to trust these people with a weapon, there are probably at least as good reasons not to trust them with the ability to make political decisions for others. It would be easy enough to be consistent.